So, are we looking at a Theresa May who is totally committed, 100% to steamrollering her own Brussels authored, Brexit In Name Only (BRINO) so-called 'deal' through the house whatever damage it might do to her party, or even the UK?


There had been hope that maybe Theresa May was prepared to move to a full WTO exit once her so-called deal had received its well deserved last rites.

But with the Olly Robbins pronouncements in a Brussels bar last night and the government's own motion tabled in the Commons that backs stopping a no-deal Brexit, we now have to face up to the real possibility that, if May cannot get her deal through the House, then Brexit could be delayed for a considerable period of time while a new way to engineer our EU imprisonment is devised.

Last night, the PM's Brexit man, Oliver Robbins, more widely known as Olly Robbins, was reportedly in a Brussels hotel bar.

While there he was overheard by ITV's Angus Walker to say that he expected MPs to be given the final choice between voting May's deal through or face a significant delay to Brexit in order to continue negotiations, which would concentrate MPs minds he said.

Now, how much of this can we take at face value? Was it speculation by him? Was it the true state of affairs? Has he got cast-iron assurances from the Commission that an extension of Article 50 is in the bag for example, as without that he's on a sticky wicket, surely?

Or was it something more Machiavellian? Because as far as I'm aware, Robbins isn't known as someone who wanders about in public with a loose tongue spilling the beans within earshot of journalists.

Now, Number Ten has been trying to play this down all day, but when facing MPs questions at PMQs today Theresa May did sidestep a bit when quizzed on leaving the EU on the 29th March.

"This House voted to trigger Article 50." She said, and continued "That had a two-year timeline that ends on the 29th of March. We want to leave with a deal and that is what we are working for."

Not a complete ruling out of a delay as far as I can see.

Then there's the matter of the motion tabled by the government that I talked about this morning.

In that video I said it would be voted on today, but now I see it will actually happen tomorrow.

But the motion does, if it is voted through, support a previous successful amendment by Tory MP Caroline Spelman that says the House of Commons is against a no deal Brexit.

Jacob Rees Mogg's European Research Group (ERG) did try to get the government to change it, but for some reason they refused and have dismissed it as an unimportant issue.

The Telegraph's Jack Maidment sent out a Tweet on this saying:

"Downing Street said it does not expect the motion to be redrafted.

"So the Govt is basically saying it is bound by the Brady amendment to seek changes to the backstop but not by the Spelman amendment despite both being agreed by a majority of MPs.

"Which will go down well."

And he also reported that Number Ten is saying that no deal Brexit remains on the table.

So you have to ask, why this contradictory motion? Why allow the possibility, or more likely probability, that internal strife within the Tories will continue to escalate?

Sounds to me like she is putting total commitment into her deal and will stop at nothing to bulldozer it through. Her aim seems to be to make the UK a full vassal state of the EU, come what may. Even if it destroys her own party, which anything other than a full WTO Brexit would do at this stage.

But her case is not helped by former Royal Marine Major General and chairman of Veterans for Britain, Julian Thompson, saying that despite the platitudes from government, if we don't leave the EU or if we leave under Theresa May's deal then we will be handing over control of our defence and security to Brussels.

The only safe way out in his view is the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Brexit route.

And finally, as you may have heard, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage who kept his UKIP earned seat on the European Parliament when he should have handed it back and is now sitting as an MEP for his new project, The Brexit Party.

He is now therefore in direct competition with his former party as well as all those loyal party members who campaigned tirelessly for him over all those years – and worse, he could potentially split the vote in any future Brexit based elections that his new party stands in.

This is not a clever 'Brexit' move by him, so I question why he is doing this.

My message is, don't be a Brexit splitter – Vote UKIP (UK Independence Party), support UKIP, join UKIP!


Thank you for watching.


Comment Here!